Performance analysis of multi-objective artificial intelligence optimization algorithms in numerical association rule mining

  • Elif Varol Altay
  • Bilal AlatasEmail author
Original Research


Association rules mining (ARM) is one of the most popular tasks of data mining. Although there are many effective algorithms run on binary or discrete-valued data for the problem of ARM, these algorithms cannot run efficiently on data that have numeric-valued attributes. However, in many real-world applications, the data usually consist of numerical values. It is a difficult problem to determine which attributes will be included in the discovered rules; automatically adjust the ranges of the attributes in the most appropriate way; rapidly discover the reduced high-quality rules directly without generating the frequent itemsets ensuring the rules to be comprehensible, surprising, interesting, accurate, and confidential. Furthermore, adjusting all these processes without the need for metrics to be determined a priori for each data set is of great importance in terms of automating this problem. Recently, numerical ARM has been dealt with as a multi-objective problem that best meets different criteria at the same time. In this study, algorithms which consider numerical ARM as a multi-objective optimization problem were examined and the performance analysis of these algorithms was performed for the first time to the best of our knowledge. A comparative analysis of MOPNAR, QAR-CIP-NSGA II, NICGAR, MODENAR, MOEA_Ghosh, and ARMMGA methods in terms of the number of rules, average support, average confidence, average lift, average conviction, average certain factor, average netconf, average yulesQ, and coverage percentage metrics in the real-world data consisting of numerical attributes was performed. The performances these algorithms were tested with single-objective optimization methods for ARM in this study. It is found that MOEA-Ghosh is the most effective multi-objective method in terms of average support and average confidence measures in data sets containing high number records and attributes. The best results in terms of average support value were obtained by MOEA-Ghosh algorithm and the average confidence values were obtained by multi-objective QAR-CIP-NSGAII in data sets containing relatively few records and attributes. Furthermore, it can be concluded that multi-objective algorithms outperformed the single-objective algorithms with respect to average support, lift, certain factor, netconf, and yulesQ metrics.


Numerical association rules mining Multi-objective optimization Data mining 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.


  1. Agrawal R, Imieliński T, Swami A (1993) Mining association rules between sets of items in large databases. ACM Sigmod Rec 22(2):207–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahn KI, Kim JY (2004) Efficient mining of frequent itemsets and a measure of interest for association rule mining. J Inf Knowl Manag 3(3):245–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alatas B, Akin E (2006) An efficient genetic algorithm for automated mining of both positive and negative quantitative association rules. Soft Comput 10(3):230–237. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Almasi M, Abadeh MS (2015) Rare-PEARs: a new multi objective evolutionary algorithm to mine rare and non-redundant quantitative association rules. Knowl-Based Syst 89:366–384. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beiranvand V, Kashani MM, Bakar AA (2014) Multi-objective PSO algorithm for mining numerical association rules without a priori discretization. Expert Syst Appl 41(9):4259–4273. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brin S, Motwani R, Ullman J, Tsur S (1997) Dynamic itemset counting and implication rules for market basket data. ACM SIGMOD Rec 26(2):255–264. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Can U, Alatas B (2017) Automatic mining of quantitative association rules with gravitational search algorithm. Int J Software Eng Knowl Eng 27(03):343–372. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Djenouri Y, Djenouri D, Habbas Z, Belhadi A (2018) How to exploit high performance computing in population-based metaheuristics for solving association rule mining problem. Distrib Parallel Databases 36(2):369–397. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fister I Jr, Iglesias A, Galvez A, Del Ser J, Osaba E (2018) Differential evolution for association rule mining using categorical and numerical attributes. In: Yin H, Camacho D, Novais P, Tallón-Ballesteros AJ (eds) International conference on intelligent data engineering and automated learning. Springer, Cham, pp 79–88. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fister I, I Fister Jr, Fister D (2019) BatMiner for identifying the characteristics of athletes in training. Computational intelligence in sports. Springer, Cham, pp 201–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ghosh A, Nath B (2004) Multi-objective rule mining using genetic algorithms. Inf Sci 163(1–3):123–133. MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Guvenir HA, Uysal I (2000) Internet: Bilkent University function approximation repository. Accessed 15 Mar 2019
  13. Kahvazadeh I, Abadeh MS (2015) MOCANAR: a multi-objective cuckoo search algorithm for numeric association rule discovery. Comput Sci Inf Technol. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kuo RJ, Gosumolo M, Zulvia FE (2017) Multi-objective particle swarm optimization algorithm using adaptive archive grid for numerical association rule mining. Neural Comput Appl. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Martin D, Rosete A, Fdez AJ, Herrera F (2014a) QAR-CIP-NSGA-II: a new multi-objective evolutionary algorithm to mine quantitative association rules. Inf Sci 258:1–28. MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Martin D, Rosete A, Alcala-Fdez J, Herrera F (2014b) A new multi-objective evolutionary algorithm for mining a reduced set of ınteresting positive and negative quantitative association rules. IEEE Trans Evolut Comput 18(1):54–69. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Martín D, Alcalá-Fdez J, Rosete A, Herrera F (2016) NICGAR: a niching genetic algorithm to mine a diverse set of interesting quantitative association rules. Inf Sci 355:208–228. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Martínez-Ballesteros M, Troncoso A, Martínez-Álvarez F, Riquelme JC (2016) Improving a multi-objective evolutionary algorithm to discover quantitative association rules. Knowl Inf Syst 49(2):481–509. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mata J, Alvarez JL, Riquelme JC (2001) Mining numeric association rules with genetic algorithms. In: Kůrková V, Neruda R, Kárný M, Steele NC (eds) Artificial neural nets and genetic algorithms. Springer, Vienna, pp 264–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mata J, Alvarez JL, Riquelme JC (2002) Discovering numeric association rules via evolutionary algorithm. Pacific-Asia conference on knowledge discovery and data mining. Springer, Berlin, pp 40–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mlakar U, Zorman M, Fister I Jr, Fister I (2017) Modified binary cuckoo search for association rule mining. J Intell Fuzzy Syst 32(6):4319–4330. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Moslehi P, Bidgoli BM, Nasiri M, Salajegheh A (2011) Multi-objective numeric association rules mining via ant colony optimization for continuous domains without specifying minimum support and minimum confidence. Int J Comput Sci Issues (IJCSI) 8(5):34–41Google Scholar
  23. Piri J, Dey R (2014) Quantitative association rule mining using multi-objective particle swarm optimization. Int J Sci Eng Res 5(10):155–161Google Scholar
  24. Qodmanan HR, Nasiri M, Minaei-Bidgoli B (2011) Multi objective association rule mining with genetic algorithm without specifying minimum support and minimum confidence. Expert Syst Appl 38(1):288–298. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ramaswamy S, Mahajan S, Silberschatz A (1998) On the discovery of interesting patterns in association rules. In: Proceedings of the 24th international conference on very large data bases, California, USA, pp 368–379Google Scholar
  26. Shortliffe E, Buchanan B (1975) A model of inexact reasoning in medicine. Math Biosci 23(3–4):351–379. MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Tan P, Kumar V, Srivastava J (2002) Selecting the right interestingness measure for association patterns. 8th Int Conf Knowl Disc Data Mining (KDD 2002) Edmonton Canada. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Yan X, Zhang Ch, Zhang S (2009) Genetic algorithm-based strategy for identifying association rules without specifying actual minimum support. Expert Syst Appl 36(2):3066–3076. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Yan D, Zhao X, Lin R, Bai D (2018) PPQAR: parallel PSO for quantitative association rule mining. IEEE Int Conf Big Data Smart Comput (BigComp). CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Software EngineeringFirat UniversityElazigTurkey

Personalised recommendations